“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court

854

citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court

689

citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court

524

citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Bhawani Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

assessment may please be quashed 2. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in reopening of assessment without application of mind and the Id. Pr. CIT also granted mechanical approval for reopening of assessment which is against the law and settled

Rajeev Kumar Sehgal, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri-2

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Kumar Sehgal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(4) Punjab Colony Lakhimpur Kheri - 2 Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Asbps5131M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in appreciating that Reopening the Assessment u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as per proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income ... learned learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in appreciating that Reopening the assessment only on a sole reason of the Audit party objection, without there being any independent application of mind to support the same, thus rendering

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

proceedings pursuant thereto. 1. The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s.148 dated 31/03/2019 is based on information received from a third party viz. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vide Letter ... order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31/03/2015 in case of the company itself as well as in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment in case of other assesses of the group way back in the year 2015, the reopening of assessment is invalid

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpana Madhani Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3846/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 73

section 148A(b) was issued on 20.05.2022 along with approval u/s 151 of the Act from PCIT Mumbai-6 wherein the reason for reopening of assessment dated 28.06.2021 was attached. The assessee filed reply to the said notice on 01.07.2022, however vide order u/s. 148A ... appeal filed by the revenue on the following grounds:- I. Reopening is bad in law: 1. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2014- 2015 vide notice u/s 148 dated 28/07/2022 without appreciating that reopening was time barred as the last day for issuance of Notice

Paresh Dayashankar Madeka, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

NFAC filed an appeal before us. 7.During the course of assessment, the Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the reopening of Assessment for AY 2011-12 was bad in law. 7.1. That the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has taken a loan ... also added in the Income.There is nothing on record to justify the action of the Ld. AO. 8. Ld. DR has submitted that reopening of assessment was according to law. That the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has also filed written

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

learned CIT(A) failed to note that no additions were made on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and therefore erred in confirming the additions in respect of interest income at Rs.1,41,857/-, unexplained credits in an amount of Rs.53,15,331/-and unexplained credits ... possession of the Assessing Officer, subsequent to the completion of the original assessment u/sec.143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on sound footing. The 16 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 learned CIT-DR further, referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Anshul Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.935/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anshul Singh Vs Ito, Wd 49(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ds-4, Uttarapan Complex, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. :Csrps9550G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Reasons Recorded For Reopening Which Is Mentioned In Para 2 Of The Assessment Order, Reads As Follows :- “2. As Per The Information Available That- Credible Information Was Received From The Office Of Ddit(Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.7,46,000/- During Demonetization On Ohd Notes. From The Details Available It Was Found That The Assessee Has Deposited The Said Cash During Demonetization In The Bank Account Maintained By Him With Corporation Bank, Baguiati Branch. The Same Details Is Also Available In Its Details Of The 2 Assessee. However, The Source Of Such Huge Cash In Ohd Notes Is Not Ascertained As Per Financials Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR

Section 147Section 148

such belief. There is not even a line of reason which may justify the formation of the belief. Consequently, we are satisfied that reopening of assessment for the assessment year in question by the Assessing Officer does not satisfy the requirement of law in terms of Section

M/S. Abhiman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2660/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: us, the Learned AR pointed out the chronology of events through detailed submissions filed for the purpose of assisting the Bench. He reiterated the fact that ultimately the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the time prescribed for issuing such notice. 2.2 The Learned DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

cases where income that escaped assessment amounts to ₹50 lakhs or more, assessments can be reopened within ten years. The new regime prohibits reopening of assessments that were time-barred under the old regime. The provisions of section 149 of the new regime are as under: 149. (1) No notice

Shaukat Ali Vali Mohammed Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 31(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3324/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2011-12 Shaukat Ali Vali Mohammed Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), Khan, Kautilya Bhavan, C-802, Pearl Horizon, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Bldg. No.3, Bandivali Hill Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. Pan : Aiepk8948B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashish Verma For Revenue : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ashish VermaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)

r.w.s 147 of the Act, without issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reopening of assessment is without jurisdiction and bad in law and also submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that re-opening assessment u/s. 148 of the Act was without ... facts as required u/s. 147 of the Act and, therefore, the notice issued pursuant to the same is bad in law since the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was only on the basis of verification of record already existing and submitted during the course of original assessment

Sunil Kumar Choudhary HUF, Dabagardens vs. ACIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/RAN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sunil Kumar Choudhary Huf...................…...........................……….……Appellant 30-15-138/20 Binoy Aka Complex, Opp. Bsnl Office, Andra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Aabhs6048Q] Vs. Acit……………………..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2Nd , 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 07.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Huf & Engaged In The Business Of Wholesaler, Transporter, Lease Rent. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,72,850/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass Followed Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 25.03.2015 With Assessed Income Of Rs.16,89,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Sought Reasons Recorded For Reopening, However The Assessing Officer Rejected Such Request Stating That The Assessee Failed To File Return In

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

such failure has been established, the condition laid down in first proviso to section 147 of the Act is not satisfied and therefore reopening of assessment is not sustainable. 5.2 In this respect, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as in the case ... where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment

Late Vinayak Puranik Through Legal Heir Yash Puranik, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 911/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253Section 54FSection 68

submission is also placed from page 1 to 6 on record of this Tribunal. The Ld. AR then submitted before us that reopening of assessment by the department of Income Tax is invalid in law. It was interalia contended that notice dated 30.01.2018 u/s 148 of the Act was issued ... registration." 15. In view of the above and that various High Courts have observed that the notice issued to a dead person for reopening of assessment of a dead person is null and void, this Court holds that the notice and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in the name

Mahendra Purushottam Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Panaji

Accordingly. The ground thus stands allowed

ITA 12/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

Page 3 of 16 Mahendra Purushottam Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 012/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 No income has escaped assessment and hence, reopening of assessment is bad in law. 4. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment of the Appellant by issuance ... were not applicable on account of the two provisos introduced by Finance Act, 2016. Failure to adhere to mandatory procedure for reopening of assessment vitiates the assessment order 5. The NFAC failed appreciate that the AO had issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and proceeded with

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 542/CHANDI/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(II)Section 35(1)(ii)

Vardhman Polytex Ltd, Ludhiana 2 1. That the learned CIT(A)-I has erred in upholding the order of the reopening the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the reasons recorded by the AO do not justify the reopening the assessment. 3. That ... issued the notice u/s 148 on 24-3-2009 which was served on the assessee on 25-3-2009. AR has objected to reopening of assessment for the reason stated by him in written submission dated 15-9-2010 and 23- 2-2011. AR's objections against of reopening

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

existent (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment made by the ITO." 11. It is well settled that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power not to be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. The heart ... Assessing Officer has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income

Vanangamudi Vairamani Pandiyan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250

erroneous as the same is opposed to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The AO having reopened the assessment in the absence of necessary jurisdiction, the CIT(A) grossly erred in failing to quash the reopening of the assessment. 3. The assessment having been reopened ... erred in failing to hold the reopening illegal. 4. There being no escapement of income, the CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the reopening of assessment by the AO. 5. The information forming the basis for reopening being incorrect and erroneous, the reopening is wholly illegal. 6. The appellant having

Annu Anil Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

present appeal before us on the ground mentioned hereinbelow: “1. Appellant contends that the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority erred in reopening of assessment proceedings just on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.) Kolkata without forming their own independent satisfaction/opinion which ... information received from DGIT (Inv.) Kolkata without making any further inquiries, without forming his own independent satisfaction that income has escaped assessment, further reopening of assessment proceedings was just on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.) Kolkata with due application of mind on the information received. 2. Appellant

Khanna Automobiles Rewa, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

addition was made without considering the reply. 6. The order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law as the reopening of assessment is without any basis as all the information was duly available before the AO during the original proceedings and the reopening is the change ... opinion. 7. The order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law as the reopening of assessment was without any new information and no tangible material was gathered by the AO and reason was based on the basis of available record and it appears that

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Indore vs. Anant Steel Private Limited, Indore

ITA 831/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and, therefore, the reopening of assessment on the ground of accumulation of income by the AO was bad in law. It was submitted that the AO had wrongly assumed that